Search Results

A surgeon's vest contructed of OREX nonwoven fabric for use as additional protection for surgeons during a surgical procedure.

A surgeon's vest contructed of OREX nonwoven fabric for use as additional protection for surgeons during a surgical procedure. The material is flame resistant, and is resistant to fluid penetration. The material also has low lint characteristics, meets suitable strength requirements for its intended use, and is resistant to tearing. The material is dissolvable after use in an OREX processor or may be disposed of using the hospital or healthcare facilities standard disposal method.

This document is a 510(k) summary for a medical device called "OREX Surgeon's Vest." It focuses on demonstrating substantial equivalence to a predicate device ("Surgeon's Vest Isolyser/White Knight") rather than presenting a study with specific acceptance criteria and detailed performance metrics as you would find for a diagnostic or AI-powered device.

Therefore, many of your requested points are not applicable to the information provided in this 510(k) summary. I will address the points that are relevant and explain why others cannot be answered from this document.

Detailed Breakdown based on the provided text:

1. A table of acceptance criteria and the reported device performance

   • Not applicable in the format requested for specific quantitative metrics. This 510(k) summary describes that "All testing conducted on the fabric used in this product was tested according to guidance documents published for biocompatibility." It also states, "The results from these tests were found to be acceptable when compared to that of the predicate device. In some instances test results were found to exceed those of the predicate device."
   • It generally implies acceptance criteria are met if the new device's performance is comparable to or better than the predicate device for parameters like flame resistance, fluid penetration resistance, low lint characteristics, suitable strength, and tearing resistance. However, no specific numerical thresholds or performance values are provided.

2. Sample sized used for the test set and the data provenance (e.g. country of origin of the data, retrospective or prospective)

   • Not provided. The document does not specify sample sizes for any of the testing conducted on the fabric. It also doesn't mention data provenance (country, retrospective/prospective).

3. Number of experts used to establish the ground truth for the test set and the qualifications of those experts (e.g. radiologist with 10 years of experience)

   • Not applicable. This device is a physical product (a surgeon's vest) and its performance is evaluated through material property testing, not through expert-based interpretation of data for ground truth establishment.

4. Adjudication method (e.g. 2+1, 3+1, none) for the test set

   • Not applicable. Adjudication methods are relevant for subjective evaluations often involving multiple readers or experts, which is not the case for material property testing described here.

5. If a multi reader multi case (MRMC) comparative effectiveness study was done, If so, what was the effect size of how much human readers improve with AI vs without AI assistance

   • Not applicable. This is a physical product, not an AI-powered diagnostic tool. Therefore, MRMC studies and AI assistance metrics are irrelevant.

6. If a standalone (i.e. algorithm only without human-in-the loop performance) was done

   • Not applicable. This is a physical product, not an algorithm.

7. The type of ground truth used (expert consensus, pathology, outcomes data, etc)

   • Not applicable in the requested sense. The "ground truth" for this device would be established by standardized material testing methods and compliance with relevant industry or regulatory standards for attributes like flame resistance, fluid penetration, strength, and tearing resistance. Comparison to the predicate device's performance serves as the benchmark.

8. The sample size for the training set

   • Not applicable. This is a physical product being tested for material properties, not an AI model requiring a training set.

9. How the ground truth for the training set was established

   • Not applicable. See point 8.

Summary based on the provided text:

The document describes a 510(k) submission aiming to demonstrate substantial equivalence of the OREX Surgeon's Vest to a predicate device. The primary method of showing this equivalence relies on material testing of the OREX nonwoven fabric according to "guidance documents published for biocompatibility." The results of these tests were found to be "acceptable when compared to that of the predicate device," and in some cases "exceeded those of the predicate device." This general statement of acceptability and superiority relative to the predicate device serves as the implicit "acceptance criteria" and "performance demonstration" within the context of this regulatory submission for a physical medical device. Specific quantitative data, sample sizes, expert involvement, or AI-related metrics are not provided as they are not relevant to this type of device and submission.

Ask a specific question about this device